I'm pretty sure it's the file sharers who are out of touch if they don't see what they're doing as illegal.
It's ironic that you are accusing others of being out of touch by claiming that file sharing is illegal. In fact, it is only illegal under some jurisdictions and, if that wasn't enough, only on very specific circumstances. Let me explain.
First of all, you must be aware that when people talk about "file sharing" or, nowadays, even "piracy", they are referring to nothing more than a copyright violation. That means that the issue is none other than distributing a work of art without the copyright owner's* explicit authorization. This bit of information is important to understand this issue, as there is a lot of FUD and propaganda muddying the waters, so that ignorant folk believe nonsense such as "you wouldn't download a car" or "copying a file is theft".
Now that we know that this "file sharing" thing is nothing more than distributing works of art without the copyright owner's explicit authorization, you must understand the rules which are implemented in different jurisdictions. For example, in countries that follow the French tradition of copyright law, it is very legal to distribute a work of art without the copyright owner's explicit authorization. It's legal to copy and distribute any work of art, provided that the sharing is being done whole following a couple of conditions, which are:
The work is shared without any commercial compensation (i.e., the sharers aren't making a buck out of it)
The distribution doesn't affect the commercial distribution in a meaningful way
So, in any jurisdiction that recognizes those basic values any citizen is free to distribute any work he wishes, provided that he isn't earning money from it and that he isn't personally responsible for undermining the entire commercialization of that work of art.
In the same manner, you can't make something illegal by mindlessly claiming that it is.
These aren't fairies we're talking about here. you're not going to clap your hands and have tinkerbell drop legal blu-ray rips into your lap.
Of course not. You just go to the library and pick up any book, CD, DVD or leaflet, or even just right-click on a file and click "download". It's much, much easier and simpler than getting tinkerbell involved. And perfectly legal, too.
If you believe that the current model is outdated, You can lobby. you can vote. you can inform. you can raise awareness. you can debate. but just ignoring the fact that it's illegal doesn't make it legal.
See, you wasted your post mindlessly repeating that it is illegal without pointing out a single evidence that it is so, no matter where you are, no matter where you are from. Meanwhile, people who happen to live in civilized countries whose legislative branch wasn't (yet) dominated by content distributors do enjoy some legal rights, including the right to access copyrighted works without the owner's explicit authorization (i.e., file sharing). But keep drinking that kool-aid and repeating your "it is wrong, mmmkay?" mantra.
* the sad state of affairs is that some jurisdictions bastardized their legal concept to change "author" to "copyright owner" and then make it possible to transfer copyrights from the artists, those who actually produced the work, to commercial entities who dedicate themselves to market and distribute what they label as "content". Therefore, this copyright issue, in those jurisdictions, stopped being about copyright but about the ability for a corporation to control and hold content hostage.
This has suddenly become an excellent business opportunity to any company that wants free publicity and wishes to get a chunk of Paypal's business. It only needs to contact wikileaks and offer their regular service, along with an assurance that they won't cancel the account. That, alone, will contrast with Paypal's notorious appalling business behaviour, which systematically lets their paying customers hang out to dry.
So, care to put your money where your mouth is, alertpay and co ?
Ever notice that anytime some cool sounding new development is announced the people behind it say 'we see this having applications in/within/in about five years?
Obviously that's how things work and I find it strange that slashdot users, from all people, complain about that fact. To get the idea of how this stuff happens, first we have a hand full of very clever people discovering new stuff and demonstrating in their labs how to take advantage of that. Then, after that point, it is still necessary to develop products that use them, along with the necessary technology and infrastructure ways to mass-produce the newly discovered technology. To put things in perspective, it takes about 2 years to develop a car from scratch to the time it starts being sold to the public, and that is the time it takes to develop a engineering project following tried and true formulas and while applying only incremental technological changes.
Call me when you actually have something to show us.
Fair enough. Only geeks find this sort of stuff fascinating.
Summary is false. Flanagan does NOT currently openly advocate assassination of Assange. Flanagan recanted.
C'mon guys... I know it's too much to ask to have you guys fact-check the actual submissions... but you should seriously consider fact-checking your editorializations that succede them. Not only would it help ensure a better project, but would also help prevent getting your asses sued.
I'm sorry, do you actually mean that Flanagan actually didn't said that and that claiming that he did is somehow a sign that a specific fact wasn't checked? It looks like that you are trying to bury that blurb even deeper than Flanagan, with his radical back-pedalling.
I'm not an american nor I ever set foot on it and I have to say that one of the unintended consequences of reading a hand full of diplomatic cables is that I actually made me respect the US a bit more than before. If you read the cables you will learn that the US is involved with other states, such as Spain and Brazil, effectively trying to fight international organized crime and other state-threatening organizations. In these cables, considering that they constitute straight unedited communications, free from all the propaganda bullshit which they spew onto reporters and free from any partisan bullshit which is imposed in political games, it is a breath of fresh air to learn that states, along with the US, are actively cooperating to impose some justice in the world.
So, the hell with those who claim that wikileaks is the devil and that these leaks are betraying a specific state. They constitute nothing more than pointing a flash-light at places that aren't usually accessible to regular people. A desperately needed flash-light.
But Assange didn't choose to go that route. He definitely wanted his name and trademark on this information. Wanting to get the truth out is one thing, but wanting to make sure that the truth gets out *under your brand name* is another. I have more respect for the former than the latter.
You should respect more the latter than the former when we consider a game-changing medium and the pioneers that, if not started, placed it in the spotlight.
The thing is, systematic information "leaking", in it's inception, desperately needs a brand name. More to the point, anonymous whistle-blowing desperately needs a spokesperson who is able to both direct public attention to the information and raise awareness to the importance of being able to do just that in a healthy democratic and free society. It there isn't a brand and name associated with the release of information and therefore if there isn't a spokesperson dedicated to the defence of the ability to release that information then those who have a vested interest in quelling the whistle-blowers, discredit the information and shut down the means to the uncontrollable release of that information will not have any opposition, which means they are free to do what they please.
It's the same thing that happens with the old media. If a particular newspiece is published through an anonymous flyer then no one will pay attention to it. Yet, if it is released on a major newspaper then the newspiece in itself will become news. For example, is it reasonable to believe that Watergate would happen if deep throat released that information through an anonymous flyer instead of publishing it through the Washington Post?
The thing is, a leak in itself is nothing. It can only gain any meaning if the leak benefits from an effective means of distribution, free from any public scrutiny. And we can only expect the leak to have a reaction if those who are referred by it do not have the means to both cut off the access to that information and destroy the ability to publish that leak, along with others. And you only get that if the ones distributing the leak managed to build a strong brand and have access to an effective distribution system.
Here's what concerns me. We have large numbers of anonymous individuals sending information off to some guy who they assume is some sort of hero or on a moral high ground. In actuality we don't know what Assange's intentions or internal agenda is. It would be trivial for Assange to filter information and only display leaks that would damage the country of his choice. Not just at a government level, but at a corporate / economic level. It is impossible to monitor Wikileak's integrity or transparency. Do you think if Mr. Whistleblower's documents regarding Country X are not posted that Mr. Whistleblower is going to go to the established media and complain about that?
That scenario is absurd. You are assuming that those who see their contributions being filtered out by Assange do not have any alternative way to distribute that information nor do they wish to provide it to other organizations beyond wikileaks. To put it in other words, you are assuming that wikileaks has, somehow, the monopoly on leaked information and absolute control on what information is published by anyone in the world. Yet, in the real world, anyone who wishes to leak information has a considerable number of reporters working for established newspapers that are quite able to publish those leaks on their own.
What the Java world desperately needs is a international standard defining both the language but the set of libraries and even the byte code that goes with it. As soon as the Java world starts following an international standard (or sets of standards) instead of being held hostage by a multinational corpotation then all these petty problems will go away.
If you want your anecdotal comparison to have any meaning then you must at least mention what environment you used to run your Java code and what compiler you used to test your C++ code. Moreover, wirting code which is "as close as possible in both languages" means that you've written code in at least one of those languages which sacrificed efficiency for the sake of being "as close as possible" to the other one.
So, in essence, what it means is that your anecdotal evidence is meaningless.
I am tired of getting the occasional java fanboy boasting Java's miraculous performance when compared to any other language, including C and C++. Yet, once they descend into the realm of reality they suddenly are faced with the fact that Java is is slower and hogs up memory when compared with the C++ equivalent compiled with GNU g++, no matter what benchmark you run, no matter what VM you run your benchmarks on. That means that Java fanboy's do the language a disservice by boasting Java's fictitious performance excellence. Java is a great language and it does have it's place but once you try to shoehorn it into domains where it clearly is not the best tool for the job then you are quickly faced with problems and limitations.
You fail to understand that, for example, when an outbreak of smallpox occurs the patients are placed in quarantine, which has nothing to do with the effectiveness of a treatment and/or vaccination campaign. Moreover, although they receive medical treatment, the fatality rate of those outbreaks is considerably high. That method also works and is employed to contain diseases which there are no known cures, including other media darlings such as ebola.
So, not only your example does nothing to contradict what has been said about the dangers of helping create superbugs but it also helps explain why the over-reliance on antibiotics of all kinds presents a danger to humanity.
Actually, in this case, the person you're replying to is right. If the stimulated response is causing your body to use the exact same method of attack against the viruses, but just cause it to act faster, than it is lowering the chance for the virus to adapt. After all, the ones who are susceptible to the immune system response are already being killed by this response, and are getting a greater number of generations in which to develop a mutation that might make them more resistant to it. If you can make the immune system kill them faster using the same method, then yes, they could still adapt, but now you're giving them less time to do it. Assuming it's even possible for them to develop a mutation that can stop it, which is not necessarily a given.
That's the point which people who at least grasp the subject, such as the OP, repeatedly make while others are systematically missing. Putting out a stronger immune system response does not nor it can ever mean that pathogens will be unable to adapt. They can adapt and, as it has been shown time and again, they will adapt. Trying to make believe that the pathogen's ability to adapt is somehow thrown out of the window if the immune system is helped to throw a stronger response is both showing ignorance and acting irresponsible. As I've pointed out before, superbugs evolved from regular microorganism species which happen to survive and adapt to stronger responses by the immune systems of their hosts. The rate at which a treatment works is perfectly irrelevant regarding this fact of nature.
Nice rant. No, actually, completely irrelevant rant. This research shows how your body breaks down viruses and provides a potential means of stimulating this response. If anything, it makes it harder for viruses to adapt, because they're faced with exactly the same defence mechanism as without this boost, it's just more powerful so they are destroyed faster and have less time to adapt.
You tried to label a comment as "completely irrelevant" but still you demonstrate you fail to understand the basic aspects pertaining to evolution. The thing is, "making it harder to adapt" does not, nor it can ever mean "making it impossible to adapt". They will adapt. It will only take a single virus to survive a stimulated response for it to replicate and propagate. With all the other unadapted virus out of the picture, the replicas of the adapted virus will in essence have an entire ecosystem at their disposal, where they will freely propagate, infect and replicate. Your poor understanding of this subject is what lead incompetent health officials and irresponsible patients to contribute to the development of the so called superbugs, which are no laughing matter.
But hey, keep spewing uneducated drivel and accuse those who demonstrate a better understanding of the subject as making "completely irrelevant rants". Meanwhile nature does work in spite of your lack of understanding.
string function(){if(true){return new string("");}else{}}
Now replace, "true" by some non-trivial tautology. The code is legal but the compiler can't know. Should it issue a warning or an error ?
That code is only legal C++ if it is possible to implicitly convert "true" (or any other type, for that matter) to that function's return type. Even then, that code consists, according to the standard, of undefined behaviour, which can and should be interpreted as a compiler error. Incidentally, that's exactly what compilers do.
Nonetheless, whoever writes code like that either has a very good reason to do so or doesn't know what he is doing.
You are wrong. The C++ standard does cover the case of "flowing off the end of a function" without specifying a return value. It states that quite clearly in section 6.6.3 - the return statement. The thing is, as defining this scenario as "undefined behaviour" they are doing nothing more than giving compiler writer's leeway to implement whatever trick they believe to be correct, including the obvious behaviour of simply declaring this to be an error. The fact that Visual C++ refuses to compile that code means that a) Visual C++ does in fact follow the standard in this issue and b) Visual C++ implements the most reasonable, expected behaviour from any undefined behaviour: declaring an error.
So, you may wish to bash Visual C++ for failing to follow the C++ standards but in this case you simply don't have any standing and in fact you should complement it for doing the right thing.
C++ was my first language too, and until I started teaching it to other people, it was my favorite. Then I saw all the things that make no sense in C++, which never tripped me up because I happened to have been using the language for so long. I also noticed that a lot of idioms and design patterns that I used to think were really cool hacks were just ways to avoid serious design flaws in the language itself.
What really killed C++ for me was when a student created a situation like this:
std::string somefunction(){}
The fact that such a thing can compile is a glaring error.
If you had invested enough time to learn the language well enough to get to a position that you are competent enough to teach others how to use it then you would know that that is indeed a glaring error. For example, if you take the time to check out ISO IEC-14882 (i.e., the international standard which defines the C++ programming language) you will eventually stumble on section 6.6.3 - the return statement. In that section you can read the following definition:
Flowing off the end of a function is equivalent to a return with no value; this results in undefined behavior in a value-returning function.
If you also aren't familiar with the concept of "undefined behavior", then you can read up regarding that on section 1.3.12 - undefined behavior, where you can find the following quote:
behavior, such as might arise upon use of an erroneous program construct or erroneous data, for which this International Standard imposes no requirements. Undefined behavior may also be expected when this International Standard omits the description of any explicit definition of behavior. [Note: permissible undefined behavior ranges from ignoring the situation completely with unpredictable results, to behaving during translation or program execution in a documented manner characteristic of the environment (with or with- out the issuance of a diagnostic message), to terminating a translation or execution (with the issuance of a diagnostic message).
So you see, what you tried to define as "not making sense in C++" is nothing more than ignorance of the language associated with the use of a compiler which fails to work well in this particular scenario. The standards may be a bit permissive in not declaring this to be illegal but the only parties dropping the ball are the ones in charge of specific compiler projects and/or ignorant users who fail to understand both this basic aspect and how to properly configure their compiler of choice.
This patent is nothing more than a description on how to use a general purpose processor to perform specific tasks. Adding to that, it describes a way to use computers to handle video. And using GPUs to do work is fundamentally very old technology, as they basically are glorified vector processors. So, how can such an obvious and overreaching patent pass regarding such fundamental technology? Is this not a obvious application of this particular technology?
So everyone's trying to make a big, fast computer.
What's at stake? What does the winner win?
What's at stake is nothing less than hundreds of million dollars and the winner gets to store that money in the bank. That's why IBM is trying to make anyone believe that there is some sort of supercomputer arms race going on between a hand full of rivals. By fanning a hand full of politician's need for nationalistic grandstanding they are in effect positioning themselves to receive a big chunk of tax money.
If you did in fact "walk your talk" then you would simply had committed suicide. Meanwhile you are still carbon-negative by wasting precious resources by eating and by purchasing goods and services. If you touch any technology that you hadn't hand-made yourself from minerals you've extracted from the earth yourself, vegetable fibres or even animal parts then you have been contributing directly for this state of affairs since you were born. And here you are, posting comments on an online forum, wasting precious electricity, using a resource-wasting worldwide system which is the internet through a resource-wasting global source of pollution which is the personal computer.
So, don't try to mask your pathetic misanthropy and psychopathy under this thin veneer of righteous ecology. Just because you hate the world and suffer from some mental illness it doesn't mean your actions are committed to preserve the environmnent*
* your statement is even more pathetic considering that this "go green" movement is based on the premise that if the environment isn't protected then our descendants will not be able to live a comfortable and sustained life. That means that your decision for not reproducing (is it really your choice?) is based on the premise that not reproducing will make the world a better place for your offspring to live in. WTF?
If I'm not mistaken, identi.ca is a microblogging platform, not a full blown social networking platform. So, while Diaspora goes directly against the main area of investment where major multinational corporations are heavily dedicated, which has a profound impact on humanity's views on fundamental rights such as the right to privacy, identi.ca is designed to only offer a very specific and limited service which is currently seen as a novelty. To put it in other terms, while Facebook alone racks about 800 million dollars anually and myspace racks in around 400 million dollars annually, twitter only manages to get a comparatively meagre million or so.
So, it is quite natural that people pay much more attention to the next Facebook/myspace/whatever killer, which is currently where the big money is at.
Seriously, a bunch of kids from NYU... what did you expect?
I don't know. What do you expect from a 21-year old kid from University of Helsinki? Personally I don't believe anyone expects much from it but nowadays you have the entire IT world being carried by a pet project made by a little Finnish kid from University of Helsinki.
Is this also the case? I don't know, really. Yet, I hope it is.
Besides the ACID test is about how well a browser handles the testing of esoteric, completely fucked up, marginally correct coding. It's also testing compliance for stuff that isn't rarely if ever used, and some stuff that's not even in the current standard (e.g. the CSS2 recommendations that were later removed in CSS2.1, reintroduced in the draft CSS3). It simply doesn't represent the real world.
You fail to understand that the job of any web developer is to develop websites which render correctly everywhere. If a feature isn't adequately supported by a considerable number of browsers then the developers will tend to avoid that particular feature. So, those features will be rarely if ever used.
So, in essence your poorly thought out complaint amounts to nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy. After all, a certain feature isn't used because the browser world fails to support it properly, the browser world fails to support it properly because that feature isn't used.
The ACID family of tests is intended to break free from that vicious cycle. The purpose of that test is to intentionally evaluate the compliance with a set of obscure features in order to drive their support, a drive which is based on a PR stage presented by achieving a greater ACID test score which acts as a positive reinforcement.
And, as it is easy to understand, what good would a ACID test do if it's purpose was to evaluate browser's compliance with well established features which are already widely adopted?
It's pretty simple.In the "Farfalha" case in Açores, the whole deal was solved in half a year...Not big-shot lawyers, no public figures, justice was swift and hard. Pedos in jail, life goes on.
In this case, we know all too well what is going on. For instance, if Carlos Cruz is innocent, why is he warning that he'll reveal the list of ALL suspects by the end of the month?
You have to ask Carlos Cruz himself. All I can do is speculate. Yet, why would a member of a criminal gang who was singled out as a fall guy revolted against the remaining members who did nothing to help him? You know, just like Bibi did with a long list of arguidos, including Paulo Pedroso. Once Bibi realized that he was being singled out and being set up by his fellow pedophile pals as the sole pedofile he started confessing about everyone and everything, which ultimately landed convictions for the remaining arguidos. Now, Carlos Cruz saw himself in the very same position as Bibi, being convicted while the remaining corruption network did nothing to help him (they easily managed to save Paulo Pedroso and Ferro Rodrigues, along with other suspects).
Why is RTP (public TV, his former employer) endorsing an un-official populist whitewash in his defense?
You have to ask the RTP people. To me, it all appears to be yet another sign of systemic corruption.
And why were Pedroso's (former "rising start" socialist minister) and damages overthrown by the appeal court (apparently, the kids who accused him weren't lying...)? Were the kids all delusional? Is our justice system so messed up that 6 years of trial couldn't prove anything?
Pedroso was taken out of the process due to a mix of changes done to the portuguese penal process, courtesy of Socrates' government, and the court ruling that there were insufficient evidences implicating him. It is also said that Socrates' government put pressure on the investigation in order to save him from being once again implicated. Yet, not only the abused children implicated him in multiple rapes and even Bibi made statements in the court directly implicating him as yet another child predator.
Regarding Pedroso's damages case, the court ruled that Pedroso's lawsuit had no merit as the kids were patently stating the truth.
Let's face it: we know that pedophilia is widespread in some areas of Lisbon and a lot of top public figures are into it...Some got caught this time.
This case only implicated the "small fries" in the criminal network. We have a chauffeur, a doctor, a former ambassador, a lawyer, a former TV presenter and a former director of Casa Pia. Yet, the governing elite such as Paulo Pedroso and Ferro Rodrigues were left out, not to mention the other members Carlos Cruz is threatening to uncover.
There are also very troubling aspects to this case, which indicate that the criminal ring has terribly deep ties to organized criminal structures which also control the political establishment. For example, João Braga Gonçalves, currently serving time for the Universidade Moderna process, also participated in the defense's campaign to derail the judicial process.
It's immaterial to this subject if Pelosi is or isn't a moron. What's relevant to this subject is that she was blatantly misquoted and her statement was, as a consequence, profoundly distorted to the point it failed to even remotely convey anything which resembled it's original message.
If she is so prolific in making "impolitic statements" then let her run her mouth at her own free will. There is no need to distort what she said in order to fabricate propaganda talking points.
I'm not an american nor I ever set foot in it but even I know that you grossly failed to provide an accurate quote of that statement. I don't know if you did that intentionally in order to try to deceive anyone or if you just so happen to be just an ignorant fool that had enough memory to write that quote without checking it first. Either way, here is the correct quote:
But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.
If you just happened not to get that quote, the meaning behind what your Speaker said was that the american people would only be able to trully understand what that bill meant when all the "fog of the controversy", which is a reference to all the FUD and propaganda which was thrown at the bill, subsided. That statement does not, by no mean, means "you only get to see the rules after we implement it". It means "there was so much crap thrown at it that you will only be able to view it objectively after it passes, after the FUD attacks have ceassed".
Wel, some witness came to public saying they were offered money to disappear - did jail prevent that?
I don't understand what you mean by that.
Nobody is questioning if the crimes actually happened - it was proven beyond doubt they happened. The big question is - did they happened when the testimonies say they happened, and with the people they accused? I don't know why, but I doubt it.
If the victims, who were proven to be honest, accuse the suspects, if the reports are coherent with the facts and if even fellow suspects, who confessed to the crimes, also implicates the other suspects of being directly and deeply involved in that child abuse network then what else is it needed to clear any doubt that the suspects systematically raped small children?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure it's the file sharers who are out of touch if they don't see what they're doing as illegal.
It's ironic that you are accusing others of being out of touch by claiming that file sharing is illegal. In fact, it is only illegal under some jurisdictions and, if that wasn't enough, only on very specific circumstances. Let me explain.
First of all, you must be aware that when people talk about "file sharing" or, nowadays, even "piracy", they are referring to nothing more than a copyright violation. That means that the issue is none other than distributing a work of art without the copyright owner's* explicit authorization. This bit of information is important to understand this issue, as there is a lot of FUD and propaganda muddying the waters, so that ignorant folk believe nonsense such as "you wouldn't download a car" or "copying a file is theft".
Now that we know that this "file sharing" thing is nothing more than distributing works of art without the copyright owner's explicit authorization, you must understand the rules which are implemented in different jurisdictions. For example, in countries that follow the French tradition of copyright law, it is very legal to distribute a work of art without the copyright owner's explicit authorization. It's legal to copy and distribute any work of art, provided that the sharing is being done whole following a couple of conditions, which are:
So, in any jurisdiction that recognizes those basic values any citizen is free to distribute any work he wishes, provided that he isn't earning money from it and that he isn't personally responsible for undermining the entire commercialization of that work of art.
As a consequence, we have countries where it has been explicitly declared that sharing files is perfectly legal.
You can't make something legal by wishing it.
In the same manner, you can't make something illegal by mindlessly claiming that it is.
These aren't fairies we're talking about here. you're not going to clap your hands and have tinkerbell drop legal blu-ray rips into your lap.
Of course not. You just go to the library and pick up any book, CD, DVD or leaflet, or even just right-click on a file and click "download". It's much, much easier and simpler than getting tinkerbell involved. And perfectly legal, too.
If you believe that the current model is outdated, You can lobby. you can vote. you can inform. you can raise awareness. you can debate. but just ignoring the fact that it's illegal doesn't make it legal.
See, you wasted your post mindlessly repeating that it is illegal without pointing out a single evidence that it is so, no matter where you are, no matter where you are from. Meanwhile, people who happen to live in civilized countries whose legislative branch wasn't (yet) dominated by content distributors do enjoy some legal rights, including the right to access copyrighted works without the owner's explicit authorization (i.e., file sharing). But keep drinking that kool-aid and repeating your "it is wrong, mmmkay?" mantra.
* the sad state of affairs is that some jurisdictions bastardized their legal concept to change "author" to "copyright owner" and then make it possible to transfer copyrights from the artists, those who actually produced the work, to commercial entities who dedicate themselves to market and distribute what they label as "content". Therefore, this copyright issue, in those jurisdictions, stopped being about copyright but about the ability for a corporation to control and hold content hostage.
This has suddenly become an excellent business opportunity to any company that wants free publicity and wishes to get a chunk of Paypal's business. It only needs to contact wikileaks and offer their regular service, along with an assurance that they won't cancel the account. That, alone, will contrast with Paypal's notorious appalling business behaviour, which systematically lets their paying customers hang out to dry.
So, care to put your money where your mouth is, alertpay and co ?
Ever notice that anytime some cool sounding new development is announced the people behind it say 'we see this having applications in/within/in about five years?
Obviously that's how things work and I find it strange that slashdot users, from all people, complain about that fact. To get the idea of how this stuff happens, first we have a hand full of very clever people discovering new stuff and demonstrating in their labs how to take advantage of that. Then, after that point, it is still necessary to develop products that use them, along with the necessary technology and infrastructure ways to mass-produce the newly discovered technology. To put things in perspective, it takes about 2 years to develop a car from scratch to the time it starts being sold to the public, and that is the time it takes to develop a engineering project following tried and true formulas and while applying only incremental technological changes.
Call me when you actually have something to show us.
Fair enough. Only geeks find this sort of stuff fascinating.
Summary is false. Flanagan does NOT currently openly advocate assassination of Assange. Flanagan recanted.
C'mon guys... I know it's too much to ask to have you guys fact-check the actual submissions... but you should seriously consider fact-checking your editorializations that succede them. Not only would it help ensure a better project, but would also help prevent getting your asses sued.
I'm sorry, do you actually mean that Flanagan actually didn't said that and that claiming that he did is somehow a sign that a specific fact wasn't checked? It looks like that you are trying to bury that blurb even deeper than Flanagan, with his radical back-pedalling.
I'm not an american nor I ever set foot on it and I have to say that one of the unintended consequences of reading a hand full of diplomatic cables is that I actually made me respect the US a bit more than before. If you read the cables you will learn that the US is involved with other states, such as Spain and Brazil, effectively trying to fight international organized crime and other state-threatening organizations. In these cables, considering that they constitute straight unedited communications, free from all the propaganda bullshit which they spew onto reporters and free from any partisan bullshit which is imposed in political games, it is a breath of fresh air to learn that states, along with the US, are actively cooperating to impose some justice in the world.
So, the hell with those who claim that wikileaks is the devil and that these leaks are betraying a specific state. They constitute nothing more than pointing a flash-light at places that aren't usually accessible to regular people. A desperately needed flash-light.
But Assange didn't choose to go that route. He definitely wanted his name and trademark on this information. Wanting to get the truth out is one thing, but wanting to make sure that the truth gets out *under your brand name* is another. I have more respect for the former than the latter.
You should respect more the latter than the former when we consider a game-changing medium and the pioneers that, if not started, placed it in the spotlight.
The thing is, systematic information "leaking", in it's inception, desperately needs a brand name. More to the point, anonymous whistle-blowing desperately needs a spokesperson who is able to both direct public attention to the information and raise awareness to the importance of being able to do just that in a healthy democratic and free society. It there isn't a brand and name associated with the release of information and therefore if there isn't a spokesperson dedicated to the defence of the ability to release that information then those who have a vested interest in quelling the whistle-blowers, discredit the information and shut down the means to the uncontrollable release of that information will not have any opposition, which means they are free to do what they please.
It's the same thing that happens with the old media. If a particular newspiece is published through an anonymous flyer then no one will pay attention to it. Yet, if it is released on a major newspaper then the newspiece in itself will become news. For example, is it reasonable to believe that Watergate would happen if deep throat released that information through an anonymous flyer instead of publishing it through the Washington Post?
The thing is, a leak in itself is nothing. It can only gain any meaning if the leak benefits from an effective means of distribution, free from any public scrutiny. And we can only expect the leak to have a reaction if those who are referred by it do not have the means to both cut off the access to that information and destroy the ability to publish that leak, along with others. And you only get that if the ones distributing the leak managed to build a strong brand and have access to an effective distribution system.
Here's what concerns me. We have large numbers of anonymous individuals sending information off to some guy who they assume is some sort of hero or on a moral high ground. In actuality we don't know what Assange's intentions or internal agenda is. It would be trivial for Assange to filter information and only display leaks that would damage the country of his choice. Not just at a government level, but at a corporate / economic level. It is impossible to monitor Wikileak's integrity or transparency. Do you think if Mr. Whistleblower's documents regarding Country X are not posted that Mr. Whistleblower is going to go to the established media and complain about that?
That scenario is absurd. You are assuming that those who see their contributions being filtered out by Assange do not have any alternative way to distribute that information nor do they wish to provide it to other organizations beyond wikileaks. To put it in other words, you are assuming that wikileaks has, somehow, the monopoly on leaked information and absolute control on what information is published by anyone in the world. Yet, in the real world, anyone who wishes to leak information has a considerable number of reporters working for established newspapers that are quite able to publish those leaks on their own.
What the Java world desperately needs is a international standard defining both the language but the set of libraries and even the byte code that goes with it. As soon as the Java world starts following an international standard (or sets of standards) instead of being held hostage by a multinational corpotation then all these petty problems will go away.
If you want your anecdotal comparison to have any meaning then you must at least mention what environment you used to run your Java code and what compiler you used to test your C++ code. Moreover, wirting code which is "as close as possible in both languages" means that you've written code in at least one of those languages which sacrificed efficiency for the sake of being "as close as possible" to the other one.
So, in essence, what it means is that your anecdotal evidence is meaningless.
I am tired of getting the occasional java fanboy boasting Java's miraculous performance when compared to any other language, including C and C++. Yet, once they descend into the realm of reality they suddenly are faced with the fact that Java is is slower and hogs up memory when compared with the C++ equivalent compiled with GNU g++, no matter what benchmark you run, no matter what VM you run your benchmarks on. That means that Java fanboy's do the language a disservice by boasting Java's fictitious performance excellence. Java is a great language and it does have it's place but once you try to shoehorn it into domains where it clearly is not the best tool for the job then you are quickly faced with problems and limitations.
You fail to understand that, for example, when an outbreak of smallpox occurs the patients are placed in quarantine, which has nothing to do with the effectiveness of a treatment and/or vaccination campaign. Moreover, although they receive medical treatment, the fatality rate of those outbreaks is considerably high. That method also works and is employed to contain diseases which there are no known cures, including other media darlings such as ebola.
So, not only your example does nothing to contradict what has been said about the dangers of helping create superbugs but it also helps explain why the over-reliance on antibiotics of all kinds presents a danger to humanity.
Actually, in this case, the person you're replying to is right. If the stimulated response is causing your body to use the exact same method of attack against the viruses, but just cause it to act faster, than it is lowering the chance for the virus to adapt. After all, the ones who are susceptible to the immune system response are already being killed by this response, and are getting a greater number of generations in which to develop a mutation that might make them more resistant to it. If you can make the immune system kill them faster using the same method, then yes, they could still adapt, but now you're giving them less time to do it. Assuming it's even possible for them to develop a mutation that can stop it, which is not necessarily a given.
That's the point which people who at least grasp the subject, such as the OP, repeatedly make while others are systematically missing. Putting out a stronger immune system response does not nor it can ever mean that pathogens will be unable to adapt. They can adapt and, as it has been shown time and again, they will adapt. Trying to make believe that the pathogen's ability to adapt is somehow thrown out of the window if the immune system is helped to throw a stronger response is both showing ignorance and acting irresponsible. As I've pointed out before, superbugs evolved from regular microorganism species which happen to survive and adapt to stronger responses by the immune systems of their hosts. The rate at which a treatment works is perfectly irrelevant regarding this fact of nature.
Nice rant. No, actually, completely irrelevant rant. This research shows how your body breaks down viruses and provides a potential means of stimulating this response. If anything, it makes it harder for viruses to adapt, because they're faced with exactly the same defence mechanism as without this boost, it's just more powerful so they are destroyed faster and have less time to adapt.
You tried to label a comment as "completely irrelevant" but still you demonstrate you fail to understand the basic aspects pertaining to evolution. The thing is, "making it harder to adapt" does not, nor it can ever mean "making it impossible to adapt". They will adapt. It will only take a single virus to survive a stimulated response for it to replicate and propagate. With all the other unadapted virus out of the picture, the replicas of the adapted virus will in essence have an entire ecosystem at their disposal, where they will freely propagate, infect and replicate. Your poor understanding of this subject is what lead incompetent health officials and irresponsible patients to contribute to the development of the so called superbugs, which are no laughing matter.
But hey, keep spewing uneducated drivel and accuse those who demonstrate a better understanding of the subject as making "completely irrelevant rants". Meanwhile nature does work in spite of your lack of understanding.
well and what do you do with something like this :
string function(){if(true){return new string("");}else{}}
Now replace, "true" by some non-trivial tautology. The code is legal but the compiler can't know. Should it issue a warning or an error ?
That code is only legal C++ if it is possible to implicitly convert "true" (or any other type, for that matter) to that function's return type. Even then, that code consists, according to the standard, of undefined behaviour, which can and should be interpreted as a compiler error. Incidentally, that's exactly what compilers do.
Nonetheless, whoever writes code like that either has a very good reason to do so or doesn't know what he is doing.
You are wrong. The C++ standard does cover the case of "flowing off the end of a function" without specifying a return value. It states that quite clearly in section 6.6.3 - the return statement. The thing is, as defining this scenario as "undefined behaviour" they are doing nothing more than giving compiler writer's leeway to implement whatever trick they believe to be correct, including the obvious behaviour of simply declaring this to be an error. The fact that Visual C++ refuses to compile that code means that a) Visual C++ does in fact follow the standard in this issue and b) Visual C++ implements the most reasonable, expected behaviour from any undefined behaviour: declaring an error.
So, you may wish to bash Visual C++ for failing to follow the C++ standards but in this case you simply don't have any standing and in fact you should complement it for doing the right thing.
If you had invested enough time to learn the language well enough to get to a position that you are competent enough to teach others how to use it then you would know that that is indeed a glaring error. For example, if you take the time to check out ISO IEC-14882 (i.e., the international standard which defines the C++ programming language) you will eventually stumble on section 6.6.3 - the return statement. In that section you can read the following definition:
Flowing off the end of a function is equivalent to a return with no value; this results in undefined behavior in a value-returning function.
If you also aren't familiar with the concept of "undefined behavior", then you can read up regarding that on section 1.3.12 - undefined behavior, where you can find the following quote:
behavior, such as might arise upon use of an erroneous program construct or erroneous data, for which this International Standard imposes no requirements. Undefined behavior may also be expected when this International Standard omits the description of any explicit definition of behavior. [Note: permissible undefined behavior ranges from ignoring the situation completely with unpredictable results, to behaving during translation or program execution in a documented manner characteristic of the environment (with or with-
out the issuance of a diagnostic message), to terminating a translation or execution (with the issuance of a diagnostic message).
So you see, what you tried to define as "not making sense in C++" is nothing more than ignorance of the language associated with the use of a compiler which fails to work well in this particular scenario. The standards may be a bit permissive in not declaring this to be illegal but the only parties dropping the ball are the ones in charge of specific compiler projects and/or ignorant users who fail to understand both this basic aspect and how to properly configure their compiler of choice.
This patent is nothing more than a description on how to use a general purpose processor to perform specific tasks. Adding to that, it describes a way to use computers to handle video. And using GPUs to do work is fundamentally very old technology, as they basically are glorified vector processors. So, how can such an obvious and overreaching patent pass regarding such fundamental technology? Is this not a obvious application of this particular technology?
So everyone's trying to make a big, fast computer.
What's at stake? What does the winner win?
What's at stake is nothing less than hundreds of million dollars and the winner gets to store that money in the bank. That's why IBM is trying to make anyone believe that there is some sort of supercomputer arms race going on between a hand full of rivals. By fanning a hand full of politician's need for nationalistic grandstanding they are in effect positioning themselves to receive a big chunk of tax money.
If you did in fact "walk your talk" then you would simply had committed suicide. Meanwhile you are still carbon-negative by wasting precious resources by eating and by purchasing goods and services. If you touch any technology that you hadn't hand-made yourself from minerals you've extracted from the earth yourself, vegetable fibres or even animal parts then you have been contributing directly for this state of affairs since you were born. And here you are, posting comments on an online forum, wasting precious electricity, using a resource-wasting worldwide system which is the internet through a resource-wasting global source of pollution which is the personal computer.
So, don't try to mask your pathetic misanthropy and psychopathy under this thin veneer of righteous ecology. Just because you hate the world and suffer from some mental illness it doesn't mean your actions are committed to preserve the environmnent*
* your statement is even more pathetic considering that this "go green" movement is based on the premise that if the environment isn't protected then our descendants will not be able to live a comfortable and sustained life. That means that your decision for not reproducing (is it really your choice?) is based on the premise that not reproducing will make the world a better place for your offspring to live in. WTF?
If I'm not mistaken, identi.ca is a microblogging platform, not a full blown social networking platform. So, while Diaspora goes directly against the main area of investment where major multinational corporations are heavily dedicated, which has a profound impact on humanity's views on fundamental rights such as the right to privacy, identi.ca is designed to only offer a very specific and limited service which is currently seen as a novelty. To put it in other terms, while Facebook alone racks about 800 million dollars anually and myspace racks in around 400 million dollars annually, twitter only manages to get a comparatively meagre million or so.
So, it is quite natural that people pay much more attention to the next Facebook/myspace/whatever killer, which is currently where the big money is at.
Seriously, a bunch of kids from NYU... what did you expect?
I don't know. What do you expect from a 21-year old kid from University of Helsinki? Personally I don't believe anyone expects much from it but nowadays you have the entire IT world being carried by a pet project made by a little Finnish kid from University of Helsinki.
Is this also the case? I don't know, really. Yet, I hope it is.
Besides the ACID test is about how well a browser handles the testing of esoteric, completely fucked up, marginally correct coding. It's also testing compliance for stuff that isn't rarely if ever used, and some stuff that's not even in the current standard (e.g. the CSS2 recommendations that were later removed in CSS2.1, reintroduced in the draft CSS3). It simply doesn't represent the real world.
You fail to understand that the job of any web developer is to develop websites which render correctly everywhere. If a feature isn't adequately supported by a considerable number of browsers then the developers will tend to avoid that particular feature. So, those features will be rarely if ever used.
So, in essence your poorly thought out complaint amounts to nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy. After all, a certain feature isn't used because the browser world fails to support it properly, the browser world fails to support it properly because that feature isn't used.
The ACID family of tests is intended to break free from that vicious cycle. The purpose of that test is to intentionally evaluate the compliance with a set of obscure features in order to drive their support, a drive which is based on a PR stage presented by achieving a greater ACID test score which acts as a positive reinforcement.
And, as it is easy to understand, what good would a ACID test do if it's purpose was to evaluate browser's compliance with well established features which are already widely adopted?
It's pretty simple.In the "Farfalha" case in Açores, the whole deal was solved in half a year...Not big-shot lawyers, no public figures, justice was swift and hard. Pedos in jail, life goes on.
In this case, we know all too well what is going on. For instance, if Carlos Cruz is innocent, why is he warning that he'll reveal the list of ALL suspects by the end of the month?
You have to ask Carlos Cruz himself. All I can do is speculate. Yet, why would a member of a criminal gang who was singled out as a fall guy revolted against the remaining members who did nothing to help him? You know, just like Bibi did with a long list of arguidos, including Paulo Pedroso. Once Bibi realized that he was being singled out and being set up by his fellow pedophile pals as the sole pedofile he started confessing about everyone and everything, which ultimately landed convictions for the remaining arguidos. Now, Carlos Cruz saw himself in the very same position as Bibi, being convicted while the remaining corruption network did nothing to help him (they easily managed to save Paulo Pedroso and Ferro Rodrigues, along with other suspects).
Why is RTP (public TV, his former employer) endorsing an un-official populist whitewash in his defense?
You have to ask the RTP people. To me, it all appears to be yet another sign of systemic corruption.
And why were Pedroso's (former "rising start" socialist minister) and damages overthrown by the appeal court (apparently, the kids who accused him weren't lying...)? Were the kids all delusional? Is our justice system so messed up that 6 years of trial couldn't prove anything?
Pedroso was taken out of the process due to a mix of changes done to the portuguese penal process, courtesy of Socrates' government, and the court ruling that there were insufficient evidences implicating him. It is also said that Socrates' government put pressure on the investigation in order to save him from being once again implicated. Yet, not only the abused children implicated him in multiple rapes and even Bibi made statements in the court directly implicating him as yet another child predator.
Regarding Pedroso's damages case, the court ruled that Pedroso's lawsuit had no merit as the kids were patently stating the truth.
Let's face it: we know that pedophilia is widespread in some areas of Lisbon and a lot of top public figures are into it...Some got caught this time.
This case only implicated the "small fries" in the criminal network. We have a chauffeur, a doctor, a former ambassador, a lawyer, a former TV presenter and a former director of Casa Pia. Yet, the governing elite such as Paulo Pedroso and Ferro Rodrigues were left out, not to mention the other members Carlos Cruz is threatening to uncover.
There are also very troubling aspects to this case, which indicate that the criminal ring has terribly deep ties to organized criminal structures which also control the political establishment. For example, João Braga Gonçalves, currently serving time for the Universidade Moderna process, also participated in the defense's campaign to derail the judicial process.
It's immaterial to this subject if Pelosi is or isn't a moron. What's relevant to this subject is that she was blatantly misquoted and her statement was, as a consequence, profoundly distorted to the point it failed to even remotely convey anything which resembled it's original message.
If she is so prolific in making "impolitic statements" then let her run her mouth at her own free will. There is no need to distort what she said in order to fabricate propaganda talking points.
I'm not an american nor I ever set foot in it but even I know that you grossly failed to provide an accurate quote of that statement. I don't know if you did that intentionally in order to try to deceive anyone or if you just so happen to be just an ignorant fool that had enough memory to write that quote without checking it first. Either way, here is the correct quote:
from Pelosi Remarks at the 2010 Legislative Conference for National Association of Counties
If you just happened not to get that quote, the meaning behind what your Speaker said was that the american people would only be able to trully understand what that bill meant when all the "fog of the controversy", which is a reference to all the FUD and propaganda which was thrown at the bill, subsided. That statement does not, by no mean, means "you only get to see the rules after we implement it". It means "there was so much crap thrown at it that you will only be able to view it objectively after it passes, after the FUD attacks have ceassed".
Wel, some witness came to public saying they were offered money to disappear - did jail prevent that?
I don't understand what you mean by that.
Nobody is questioning if the crimes actually happened - it was proven beyond doubt they happened. The big question is - did they happened when the testimonies say they happened, and with the people they accused? I don't know why, but I doubt it.
If the victims, who were proven to be honest, accuse the suspects, if the reports are coherent with the facts and if even fellow suspects, who confessed to the crimes, also implicates the other suspects of being directly and deeply involved in that child abuse network then what else is it needed to clear any doubt that the suspects systematically raped small children?